In Grand Rapids, Michigan, Christian publisher Zondervan is facing a $60 million federal lawsuit for allegedly homophobia and prejudicial translations of the Bible. by a man who claims he and other homosexuals have suffered based on what the suit claims is a misinterpretation of the Bible. Bradley Fowler has sued the publisher despite the fact that it is not the translator.
Fowler focuses on the translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 — and notes that homosexuals are listed “wicked” or “unrighteous” and barred from the kingdom of heaven.
A typical such translation reads “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV).”
Fowler insists that $60 million and an apology is needed “To compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability,” Fowler told 24 Hour News 8 in a phone interview.
He insists that Zondervan Bibles published in the 1980s use the word homosexuals but that it dropped in later editions.
It is a frivolous lawsuit that in flawed on a variety of levels. People are allowed to interrupt Biblical passages as they see fit. It is certainly not the domain of courts to resolve such theological debates.
For the full story, click here.
That’s a new twist: we don’t like what the Bible says, so let’s sue the publisher. What he needs to do is sue God. Who is God to tell us what sin is in the first place? Who is he to decide who can go heaven? What is he, almighty or something?
Unfortunately one can’t sue God. We might say he presides over a “higher court.” I’m making light of the situation, because what I want to do is rant and scream; this is ridiculous. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. Romans one is pretty clear in any translation I’m aware of. The Bible publisher Zondervan hasn’t caused this man grief; his homosexual behavior which goes against the laws of God and nature have brought him grief. That’s like sueing the police officer who wrote a ticket for speeding, claiming that paying the fine and getting points on your lisence caused emotional trama.
The Irony here, is that those so loudly condemning homosexuality based on their religions, are the Christians. The Evangelical Christians.
Yet, in his entire recorded ministry, Jesus didn’t think to mention it once.
Not once.
If it was considered a sin, it must have not been a very important one.
Of course try explaining that to a evangelical Christian.
Might as well try to explain “Red Shift” to a Chimpanzee.
The lawsuit however, is untenable.
Freedom to worship how we see fit, I believe is still a protected right.
I think the problem here of course is the evangelical Christians go looking for it, and thus ridiculous suits like this, are likley to crop up from time to time.
Think about it.
Who did Jesus not like?
Who did he “pick on” all the time?
Well, if you actually “read” the bible, you will know that it was the relgious pious, who spent their time focusing on condemning sin in others, while not, as it were, beholding the beam in their own eyes. Or more specifically, the religious leaders of his time.
Leaders who were focused on, oh say… sexual trangressions.
Take for example the woman who Jesus confronted in the temple, near the Mount of Olives. The Sanhedrin council thought to confound Jesus, and brought to him a woman caught in the very act of adultery, and placed her before him in the temple court, for judgment.
This was merely polticial posturing of course, designed to entrap Jesus and thus dissuade the masses currently listening at his feet, as to the validity of his divinity. While the Law of Moses permitted for her being stoned to death, as adultery was punishable by death, and stoning was the method, they in fact had no likley intention of carrying it out. Adultery was more commen than one might think, and most of the Sandhedrin leaders no doubt dabbled in the forbidden on regular occasion, not to mention Roman law, under which they were currently at the mercy of, forbade the Jewish people from practicing capital punishment of its citizens, even though it permitted for the dispening of justice for most other civil and criminal matters.
So the intent was clear. Entrap Jesus in a typical, almost Rovian trap, of demanding an answer from this new prophet, in front of his followers, that would be used against him, no matter which way he went.
On the one hand, permitting her to live demonstrated he was “weak on crime”, and thus would be used to dissuade the more pious of the Jewish people from following him.
And on the other hand, if he followed the law, they would be able to dismiss his new “turn the other cheek” gospel, and thus dismiss him as a false prophet.
Jesus of course, being somewhat smarter than the average bear, stooped in the sand, and began to draw something with a stick (would you love to know what?), until finally, rising, facing the mob, and declaring, “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone”.
And just like that, this amazingly gifted public speaker, put an end to their little ploy. Like withering sheep, so the story goes, they each one by one,sensing their own guilt, and not wanting to publically be challenged, dropped their rocks (the mob rallied by the Sanhedrin, much like the political parties today bus in supporters to intimidate the opposition), and sulked off into obscurity.
And what did we learn from this story?
Quite simple actually.
No great mysteries. No supernatural theories.
What we learned from this parable, that is found in the Synoptic gospels, is that Jesus, doesn’t like tattle-tales.
Correction. I was dyslexic as to the origin of the story.
Its “not” a parable, but a narrative, and its found “outside” of the Synoptic gospels, in the gospel of St John.
This of course is only one example. The gospels are thick with such stories. The Parable of the Prodigal. The Unjust Steward. The Sermon on the Mount.
In all of his teachings, Jesus always chastised the condemer, and favored the condemed.
He made it clear that the outwardly religious, were further from his gospel, than those who did not profess it, or even accept it, but lived it, in their daily dealings with others.
There were no magic secrets, no great requirements, other than, love others, be nice, get along, do no harm, help the sick, the widowed, the downtrodden, the prisoners, anyone on the downside, lift them up. Don’t hold grudges, forgive easy, learn to work with your enemies, and leave people better than you found them.
THAT was it. That was the entire gospel, with regards to instructional material, in a nutshell. And I will here, as I have on many occasions, challenge any evangelical Christians, or any bible scholars for that matter, to prove me wrong.
They won’t be able to, but its always fun to watch them try.
And I also challenge evangelical Christians, to examine closely their motives.
After all, if Jesus clearly did not like the religious people of his time getting together to threaten (only threaten mind you) stoning a woman to death for being caught in adultery, then how do you think he would find the evangelical Christian groups today as they stand outside of US Courthouses carrying signs saying “death to fags”?
Ever consider that did you?
I have a suggestion.
Try putting down the beer, picking up your bible, turning it to the ONLY 4 books in it that contain the words, and instructions of the man you claim to follow, and READ.
Read what Jesus actually said.
Forget about the Torah (the parts of the Old Testament you guys focus on). Unless you’re Jewish, the Law of Moses doesn’t really apply to you (unless you want to start counting how many footsteps you take on Saturday).
Forget the epistles, and Revelations. These are books that had specific meanings for their time. Mostly arguments among the various sects over which hand to wipe their butts with, and other trivial matters, mingled with a little doctrine, mostly recently invented, or handed over from the Torah, and focus on the only 4 books that should matter to you.
The other stuff is interesting, has some good stories, but until you can master your masters words, and follow the law HE gave you, then why in Gods name would you waste your time worrying about which brand of Chuck Taylors Peter wore to Church on Sunday?
The gospels there. In four, cannonized books. The words date back to the lives of the apostles who’s name they bear, hence are probably the best eyewitness accounts of what Jesus actually came here to tell you.
And newsflash.
What you guys have been doing publicly over the past few years, ain’t it.
“For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones”
Matthew 23:27
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9-10; NKJV).”
Now that’s a class action suit!
The fundies forget that the Bible was kept “orally” for centuries. This further erodes the status of the Bible as the “divine Word”.
Clark Bunch:
I read your post here and I was then off to your blog. It appears to me that you have a religious-centered notion of things. On your blog, I read your epistle on the Separation of Church and State and thought it might be of interest here so I am responding in this forum. I am surprised by your belief that the Separation of Church and State is some quaint little Jeffersonian notion that only burst upon the scene as political philosophy when its was “discovered” in an old letter to the Danbury Baptists during the 1950’s.
As a little history refresher, the concept of separation of Church and State has its origins in ancient times, but the most relevant exponent to our democracy was John Locke, who also brought you such other quaint notions as the social contract and liberal democracy with a restrained government. Jefferson did indeed explain the concept in a well thought out letter to the good churchmen of Danbury but it was by no means lost to the ages until 1950. The US Supreme Court used the term as early as 1878 (Reynolds v. United States), though its main discussions of the concept came in a series of cases starting in 1947 (Justice Hugo Black as its main proponent). James Madison also wrote of the total separation of church and state, and it served as the bedrock for the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom which Madison supported and Jefferson wrote. President John Tyler also used the term in a letter in 1843. Jefferson’s letters were not “lost,” and his letter to the Danbury Baptists was known and cited many times before 1950.
The basis exposition of the concept was announced by Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Education:
“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’” 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.”
Rich
1, July 10, 2008 at 10:49 am
The fundies forget that the Bible was kept “orally” for centuries. This further erodes the status of the Bible as the “divine Word”.
——————
Not so. At least, not so that the concept of the oral tradition implies inaccurate transference of the information.
You’re confusing the “divinity” with the accuracy of the records.
The accuracy of the records has little to do with whether they contain “divine” content or not. Thats a matter for the reader to conclude, and something best left in the realm of the personal “spiritual” beliefs, and not taken into context with regards to accuracy of the records as to their written content.
Oral traditions of early Judean scholars, were quite rigid, and followed strict guidelines. They were openly taught in religious schooling, and recited in the form of a “chant” or “mantra”. Deviations were not therefore, something lightly introduced, and the likelyhood of so much as an adjective being altered over a 500 year period, was unlikely. These were the sort of mantra’s one might here at the wailing wall in Jerusalem. They were not “word of mouth” as you, and modern civilization understands it.
And by the way, it wasn’t “ALL” oral tradition.
There were many scribes among the Sanhedrin, and in the temples, sacred history’s were being constantly recorded. Where did you think the early authors got the information for the original codices?
This is a common misconception about the Bible, and its accuracy as far as what was actually written, and what we have today.
The Gospels themselves, date back to at or around the time of the deaths of the first apostles, thus, thats pretty good intel, from a historical perspective.
Also, I think its important to point out that the “oral law”, you are referring to, is likely the Oral Torah, which is were most of the “piddly” laws came from.
How many steps to walk on Saturday, which insects are “unclean”, and other minutia referenced in the written Torah, but expounded on in the “Oral Torah”. The “books” themselves, were carefully written by highly educated “Scribes” who were carful to change nothing, from generation to generation. In fact, the original term “Sefer Torah”, literally means “Law that is Written”.
Understanding a little about Jewish tradition, beliefs and understanding helps us to understand the books we have today, that make up the cannonized version of the Old Testament, as found in the King James Bible. Each word and marking, even the most minute, was considered “sacred”, and thus had unique spiritual meanings, and lessons, thus changes were not tolerated throughout the years.
The real problem I see today, is that the masses seem to prefer someone to “tell them” what the Bible says, rather than actually reading it, for themselves.
Christians, partiuclarly the new branch of pseudo-Christianity, referred to as the Evangelical Christians, do not encourage their members to actually focus on the words of Christ, who’s name after all they claim to bear.
Instead, they focus on the Old Testament, and minutia they find in Treatises, and Epistles, which have little to do with the “new law” delivered by Jesus. The “good news” as it were.
I strongly recommend, that anyone calling themselves Christian, seriously considering their beliefs, faith, etc, run down to their nearest Christian bookstore, and purchase a “Red Letter” edition of the King James Bible.
The Red Letter edition, first printed in 1900, was the invention of Louis Klopsch, editor of a Christian publication. The idea was simple.
Put the actual words attributed to Jesus, in red letters, to make them stand out for the reader. And a great idea it was. Because most people skim over the words of Jesus, and focus on the minutia their pastors and priests steer them too, so as to permit the type of Christianity we have today in the form of Evangelicalism, which teaches you can love your neighbor on Sunday, and drop a 500 pound bomb on them, on Monday.
When the evangelicals realize that their gospel, is no gospel, but a gospel of hate, and has nothing to do with the actual teachings of Christ, then perhaps they’ll start to get their act together, and come out of the dark ages, and start doing some good in peoples lives, instead of perpetuating the hate.
Bartlebee:
“The Gospels themselves, date back to at or around the time of the deaths of the first apostles, thus, thats pretty good intel, from a historical perspective.”
*****************
Then how would you account for the 140 or so contradictions in the unerring, divine text, some as simple as:
Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19
And my personal favorite:
All scripture is inspired
2 Tim 3:16
Some scripture is not inspired
1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17
I wouldn’t send you out into the night with intel like that.
Any person who doesn’t believe that all religious texts have been “edited” by the decree of the politically powerful at a given time, see Council of Nicea, for their own specific needs is at best naive. This is not a knock of religion. Paraphrasing Rabbi Hillel’s definition of the meaning of the Torah (Five books of Moses) “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you….all the rest is commentary.” The haters and egotists seeking power through religion, parse the content until they find the backing for their particular vitriol.
“Then how would you account for the 140 or so contradictions in the unerring, divine text,”
Like those defamatory remarks about the frogs?
Face it; without the frogs, Moses and the Jews weren’t going anywhere.
Bob,
you might be right but have you tasted our gefilte fish? Heavenly.
mespo727272
1, July 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Bartlebee:
“The Gospels themselves, date back to at or around the time of the deaths of the first apostles, thus, thats pretty good intel, from a historical perspective.”
*****************
Then how would you account for the 140 or so contradictions in the unerring, divine text, some as simple as:
Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19
And my personal favorite:
All scripture is inspired
2 Tim 3:16
Some scripture is not inspired
1 Cor 7:6/ 1 Cor 7:12/ 2 Cor 11:17
I wouldn’t send you out into the night with intel like that
—————
Good thing too.
Because the “Gospels”, are not found in Genesis.
Or 1st Corintians for that matter.
In fact, not one of the books you referenced is one of the “gospels”.
So yes, thank you.
I wouldn’t want you sending me “out” with THAT kind of intel, either.
Now, if your argument, albeit inaccurately represented, is that there are “contradictions” in the various books of the bible, then “duh”.
Unfortunately, that has little to do with verfiying the original text.
And since my argument, was with regards to the veracity of the oral and written traditions, your “argument” appears to be confined to within your own person.
Or perhaps extended to the “strawman” you created for it.
But do feel free to try again.
Bartlebee, is at your service.
In all fairness however, to mespo, and others desperatly seeking to discredit other peoples faith, and religions, I will admit its not really their fault.
Its the fault of the Evangelical Christians, once again. (Sorry EC’s)
See, its the Evangelical Christians, who read the bible like they’re reading a comic book, and expound on it accordingly.
The notion that the Bible, is the “infallible” word of god, is another false flag perpetuated by the Evangelical community to support their pastors doctrinal omnipotence.
Even the Catholics no longer try and sell that one.
Bartlebee:
From your multitude of posts I have gleaned that you accept only that part of the Bible is divinely inspired despite the tenets of all other faiths that their entire magic book is the unerring word of the Creator–and yes the Catholics say that too in their catechism.* Your cafeteria Christianity does make my job harder, but as you can see below there are more than enough contradictions to go around. I guess the Gospels turn you on so let’s talk about that:
Let’s start with the central mystery of Christendom, the crucifixion:
When was Christ crucified? Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour and they crucified him.” John 19:14-15 “And it was the preparation of the Passover, and about the sixth hour; and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king…Shall I crucify your king?” John 19:14-15.
Moving along, let’s talk resurrection:
How many women came to the sepulcher? John 20:1 Only one woman went, Mary Magdalene. Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene and the “other Mary” (Jesus’ mother) went.
Mark 16:2 It was sunrise when the two women went to the sepulcher. John 20:1 It was still dark (before sunrise) when Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulcher.
There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulcher and they were standing up. Luke 24:4 There was only one angel seen and he was sitting down. Mark 28:2-5
How many angels were within the sepulcher? John 20:11-12 two, Mark 16:5 one.
Now really these are just small matters, how about something important like where did Jesus appear to his apostles after the resurrection:
Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven disciples? In a room in Jerusalem. Luke 24:32-37 On a mountain in Galilee. Matthew 28:15-17
Ok so let’s stop nitpicking and reach the crux of the matter and find out if the most important event in the Scripture, Christ’s ascension into heaven thus proving his divinity is faithfully captured by these “careful” scribes:
Where did Christ ascend from? From Mount Olivet. Acts 1:9-12 From Bethany. Luke 24:50-51
Paul’s attendants heard the miraculous voice and stood speechless. Acts 9:7 Paul’s attendants did not hear the voice and were prostrate. Acts 22:9 & 26:14
Has anyone ascended up to heaven? Elijah went up to heaven: “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” 2 Kings 2:11 “No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man.” John 3:13
And I wouldn’t go around badmouthing the Evangelicals. From a theological standpoint, they are much truer to their faith than you since they accept the Bible literally and in toto, as the Bible itself says they must. I don’t really blame you though. Who wants to be associated with that crowd or their brand of religion. Oh sorry, I now see that you have all the answers, and like every other dogmatist, arrogantly claim superior knowledge to those who believe too little and those who believe too much.
___________________
*God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Sec.1, Ch. 2, Art. 3, Para II (105))
mespo727272
1, July 10, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Bartlebee:
From your multitude of posts I have gleaned that you accept only that part of the Bible is divinely inspired
—————–
Then I’d try “gleaning” some more.
Nothing in any of my “multitude” of posts suggests that any part of the Bible is “divinely inspired”.
My comments merely point out the obvious hubris of the Evangelical Christians, in ignoring the words and teachings of the man whom they claim to represent.
I’ll wait until you re-formulate your position to address what I did say, to continue if you like.
Oh, and by the way, no where in your excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church does it define the bible as “infallible”.
You might want to go back further than that publication to find such assertations made by the Catholics.
Think Constantine, and Innocent the 1st.
mespo727272
1, July 10, 2008 at 11:47 pm
And I wouldn’t go around badmouthing the Evangelicals. From a theological standpoint, they are much truer to their faith than you since they accept the Bible literally and in toto, as the Bible itself says they must.
————-
Well, if accepting the Bible literally and toto, means they ignore the 4 Gospels, which are the only books which contain the “new law” which they are supposed to be adhering to, then I agree.
I can honestly say at that point, that they accept the Bible in “toto”.
But they don’t accept it in total.
Because if they did, they’d know that none of it applies to them until they abide by “the good news”, the “new law”, as delivered by the master. The guy who’s words they somehow never seem to quote in their public stump speeches.
Ok, got tired of waiting.
Here’s a little more to ponder when formulating your next response.
Jesus gave his law, which fulfilled the old law, (Law of Moses), and introduced a new, higher law. His law didn’t require direct admonitions on specific crimes, like murder, or theivery.
Following his law precluded any such events from ever occuring, thus, following his law, meant never having to pay attention to the old law, again. Because focusing on his law, meant the important aspects of the old law, would naturally be fulfilled.
He instructed those who would claim to follow him, to not focus on the minutia of the old way, but to instead, learn, and follow his new law. His new commandments. His “good news”.
Thus, he didn’t admonish his followers to follow “the” commandments.
He said;
If you love me, keep MY commandments
John 14:15
Enough!
The law Jesus introduced, made certain that the old law was fulfilled.
If someone for example, commits adultery, then they are not following his law, because they are not loving their neighbor…..
ok… lemme rephrase that.:D
Your neighbor, is everyone you come in contact with.If you cheat therefore on your wife, you’ve cheated on your neighbor, and broken his law.
If you fail to pay someone money you owe them, then you’ve not honored that person in the manner he described (as you would have done unto you), thus, keeping his law, ensured the old law was fulfilled.
Many people make the mistake of thinking he did away with the old law. He did not. He just introduced a higher law.
Think of it like applying for a CDL (Commercial Drivers License). If someone who’s never had a license, applies for a CDL, he does not need to worry about the requirements for a standard Class D Operators license. Because his “higher law” will ensure he complies with the lower one.
The problem with the Evangelicals is, they pay little to no attention to the “higher law”, and spend all their time nitpicking at others on the lower one.
The words of the man they claim to represent, are in the 4 Gospels. The Narrative known as the Gospel of Saint John, and the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
When the Evangelicals can start teaching their sermons from THESE books, and not Leveticus, then they’ll have a leg to stand on.
In the meantime, they’re just a bunch of Pharisee’s (cause they believe in the literal resurrection, otherwise I’d call em Saducees, ha ha), spouting orders at others, preaching high in the market places… to be “seen of men”, wearing fine apparels and ignoring the words of the guy they claim to represent.
So no, I won’t go easy on the “Evangelicals”.
They’re the worst of the bunch.
Patty C
1, July 11, 2008 at 12:33 am
Enough!
—–
Well gee Patty, since I’m not talking to you, but responding to another commenter, (unless he’s you incognito), and since I’ve gotten your clock about as clean as I can get it, I’ll accept your declartion that you’ve “had enough”, and continue responding to the more calm, collective blogger who is discussing Christianity with me in a much more mature manner, than you.
BARTLEBEE:
No, Patty has it right. You somehow think avoiding the issue, semantic hairsplitting, textual cherry-picking, and denying what you have already said makes you superior. What I see is a psuedo-intellectual desperate to appear knowledgeable and a guy with way too much time on his hands.
Bartlebee, you need to get a life! As much as I love Prof. Turley’s website, it’s sunny outside and life calls me. All this time by the computer can’t be that fulfilling, when interactions with other humans and nature calls. As for your intellectual pretensions, a truly intelligent person is one who can admit to oneself (and the world) that no matter how much one has learned, there is still infinitely much more to discover. Your conception of intellect seems highly competitive, which means that true dialog is impossible, since for you it is all about proving that you’re smarter. What a waste since the beauty and fun of this website is actually having a dialog with other people that can lead to mutual gains in knowledge.
mespo727272
1, July 11, 2008 at 7:14 am
BARTLEBEE:
No, Patty has it right. You somehow think avoiding the issue, semantic hairsplitting, textual cherry-picking, and denying what you have already said makes you superior
——-
Well gee, thats a mouthfull.
Unfortunately, it does not contain any facts, specifics, quotes to which you are presuming to refute, etc.
Nothing but one long unfounded, juvenile rant, that produces not one iota of actual data to support the rant.
So perhaps to you, I do appear superior.
After all, my commments, have things like…. you know,… facts… and such.
But feel free to wow us all with your extensive knowledge on the subject, by actually refuting something I said.
I’ll be waiting.
Michael Spindell
1, July 11, 2008 at 11:03 am
Bartlebee, you need to get a life! As much as I love Prof. Turley’s website, it’s sunny outside and life calls me. All this time by the computer can’t be that fulfilling, when interactions with other humans and nature calls.
———–
Is this sour grapes day, or just assorted fruits in general?
Another juvenile rant without a shred of data, or even a general argument, to refute a single fact which I presented.
What I do notice however, is the pitiful retort reserved for the perpetually dim bloggers who cannot produce a single original thought of their own, so they resort to criticizing the subject they cannot compete with, for merely being in the blog.
The same blog they themselves are in.
Amazing.
One when of you can formulate an actual argument, along with some facts to refute whatever facts I posted that you apparently disagree with, I’ll be happy to eviscerate them for you as well.
I will say this for you Michael Spindell.
Reading your post, does in fact cause one to envision “nature calling”.
The fact is, the least Christian like of the Christian denominations, are the Evangelicals.
They do not follow the words of the man who’s name they claim to bear, but instead spend their time condemning others, based on archaic values they dig up out of the Torah.
Christians, true Christians, read and follow the words of Christ.
Not Moses.
In fact, I’d be willing to wager that Jesus and the boyz have got that fat pig, Falwell, turning nicely glazed on a spit, as we speak.
Rump Roast.
“Chew” on that one…. for a bit.
MichaelSpindell:
I see that you have incurred the wrath of our little Bartlebug. I am amazed that he sees only his facts when our posts are full of them seriatim. I also enjoy his numerous posts when one or two would do. Is is insecurity or erratic thinking? In any event, I shall join you today in the sunshine and play a round. I do hope that when nature calls both of us can answer the call in a place worthy of it and, coincidentally, likewise worthy of Bartlebee’s musings.
mespo727272
1, July 11, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I see that you have incurred the wrath of our little Bartlebug. I am amazed that he sees only his facts when our posts are full of them
Well, I would agree that they’re full of something.
However you’ve yet to procduce a single “fact” that refutes anything I’ve said.
But do feel free to try again.
The “Bartlebug”, is at your service.
I will concede this point however.
You do posses about as much knowledge on the Bible, and the topics of which you’re expounding on, as do the Evangelical Christians.
In fact, if I didn’t know better…
Oh and as for “drawing my wrath”…?
I’d put it no higher than “amusement”.
Bartlebee,
You’re right I offered no refutation to your numerous posts. While you are no doubt in awe of yourself and your perspicacity, I find it tedious and overwrought. You think yourself amusing and no doubt to yourself you are. I commend you for being so happy with yourself, no matter how tedious that self may be to others.
I admit that I am judging you and for all I know you might be a fine person with a winsome personality. I try hard not to be initially judgmental of people. I apologize for misjudgment if that is the case. Perhaps your output is the result of feeling rejected or misunderstood at this website and so a determination developed in you to show us all the breadth of your intelligence. However, you must admit that your incessant and voluminous comments might well appear to others as the disruption of a persistent troll, who by the dint of his output attempts to stifle, rather than promote discussion.
Which brings me full circle. I do admit to not directly responding to your points. My non-response was borne of a judgment, made from your many comments that your posts were more about your ego than discussion. This was bolstered by your tendency to engage in personal attacks with those you found disagreeing with you. Admittedly, your perspective is that you were attacked first, but I believe the opposite to be true. So while admitting that I may be judging you harshly, I refuse to engage with you, not out of fear, but out of boredom. Perhaps if you would expose more of your real self than the hubris so evident in your discourse, we might all come to see you as a valuable co-contributor.
Michael Spindell
1, July 12, 2008 at 11:38 am
Bartlebee,
You’re right I offered no refutation to your numerous posts. While you are no doubt in awe of yourself and your perspicacity, I find it tedious and overwrought
So your response to attacking me without provocation, is that you’re a pompous ass who attacks anyone who you decide you don’t like, simply because you feel like it?
Ok….I can accept that.
BARTLEBEE
1, July 12, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Michael Spindell
1, July 12, 2008 at 11:38 am
Perhaps your output is the result of feeling rejected or misunderstood at this website and so a determination developed in you to show us all the breadth of your intelligence
uhhh… nooo….my “output” is the result of being attacked without provocation.
Its called, “standing up for yourself”.
When someone hits me, I usually hit them back.
Perhaps in circles you run in, the response to being hit is curling up in a ball and crying.
I however respond to attacks, especially when they get personal, which your attacks, by your own admission above in not actually responding to my comments, but instead merely launching juvenile personal attacks, were.
As for my “breadth of intelligence, you’re the ones who keep referring to it. I never once suggested anything with regards to my own IQ.
What you deduce from my posts, is your business, but I’m neither a scholar nor a professor, just a poor ole country blogger, responding to the voluminous unwarranted and self aggrandizing personal attacks on me, apparently simply because you don’t like me.
So if you want to apologize for launching unwarranted personal attacks on this lone blogger, then do so.
But spare me the self aggrandizing lectures trying to psychoanalyze my motivation for responding to your smears in kind.
When someone hits me first, I usually hit back.
And if you don’t like that fact, then I suggest not writing a check with your mouth that your keyboard can’t cash.
As I’ve repeatedly told the remainder of your murder of cawing crows, if you don’t like it, then don’t come looking for it.
Michael Spindell:
Well I guess we now know for a fact that Bartlebee is really tough and can defend himself. I don’t know about you, Michael, but I am off to the gym to bulk up. What a jackass that guy has become in just a few days on the blog! I bet he’d really charm you in real time. Hoping the vacation and great expectation are going well.
mespo727272
1, July 12, 2008 at 5:13 pm
What a jackass that guy has become in just a few days on the blog!
As opposed to the jackass you’ve been in here along?
OK, Everybody, who matters knows who they are, weigh in
- who thinks mespo is a jackass?
negats!
Patty C.
Patty C:
My wife says that I am one on occasion. So that’s one for jackass, and I am abstaining.
It is important to note that it isn’t what was put into the translation as it changed over the years, but what the publisher allowed to take out.
Even Mr. Turley (who I have a lot of respect for) seemed to miss the point of the lawsuit– not one translation, but a “smoking gun” pattern over the years of tweaking a book to incite hate against a single group.
Even though I’m not a law expert, this suit has some merit of discussion because inciting violence and hatred is not protected speech.
Patty C:
My wife says that I am one on occasion. So that’s one for jackass, and I am abstaining.
****
That’s ‘executive’ privilege’!
WELL BARTLEBEE,,,PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE 18TH CHAPTER OF LEVITICUS TOO!! PATTY C. APPEARANTLY FREEDOM OF SPEACH DOESN’T
COVER GOD!!! AND I WOULD REALLY HATE TO BE THE JUDGE WHO RULES
IN THIS MORRONS FAVOR WHEN HE STANDS BEFORE GOD!! ANY JUDGE IN
HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD THROW THIS JOKE OF A CASE OUT! WHERE DO WE
DRAW THE LINE ON CHRISTIAN PROSECUTION? WHY AREN’T CHRISTIANS
TODAY,NOT TAKING A STAND? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
Gee.
Patty C… and now “Pat” B.
Who’d thunk it?
PAT B.
1, July 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm
WELL BARTLEBEE,,,PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE 18TH CHAPTER OF LEVITICUS TOO!!
Why?
Do you think I’m a Jew?
WHO CARES.
People need to stop messing with our freedom of speech. I am all for gay rights (because people should have rights because they’re people not straight or gay). I’m all for religious freedom. I’m all for adult content with consenting adults.
Stop telling us what we can and cannot publish or read. It’s really none of anyone else’s business.
Gawd. Just stop it already!